Hits to the head ejection

[B1G Red]

I think the argument against the rule change is the subjectivity of the call vs. the severity of the penalty. With the current 15 yd PF, refs are already changing the course of the game, sometimes with questionable calls. Same questionable refs and calls, now with enhanced impact on the game, (and possibly the next).

 

[Mavric]

If they would just enforce the rules already in the rule book, they wouldn't need to keep adding new ones. How many times IN YOUR LIFE have you seen a spearing call? They've cracked down more in the last couple years on helmet-to-helmet (new rule) but have you ever seen someone flagged for a plain old, garden variety spearing call? I haven't. If you they would just start penalizing that call, a lot of the injuries would go away, both from the hitter and the hit-ee. You would get a lot more results from penalizing the team rather than the player because officials aren't going to want to throw guys out of a game but they would penalize spearing if instructed to do so.

:boxosoap : This is mainly directed at NFL players but forgive me if I don't buy your whining about how the NFL doesn't do enough to protect it's players if a lot if not most of them don't strap their helmets on correctly and wear mouthpieces, knee pads, thigh pads, etc.

:rant

 

[Decked]

Approved by the NCAA. Way to much power to the refs.

 

[ADS]

The pussification of football has begun

 

[B1G Red]

The original proposal included a video review which could overrule the ejection, but the 15 yard PF stands. Did the final approval include that provision?

 

[B1G Red]

Just googled it, "The rule would allow for the ejection portion of the penalty to be reviewed through video replay. The replay official must have conclusive evidence that the penalized player didn't intentionally target a defenseless player in order to overturn the call" (from CBS sports).

I keep thinking about Bell's block. He contacted with his shoulder/arm on the opponents collarbone area. But with the call made for targeting, does the video replay conclusively show he did not target? The call was bad in real time, I don't trust that the idiots in stripes would make the right replay call either.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

This is just dumb. But here's a caveat, remember that no touchdown for unsportsmanlike conduct that the NCAA enacted a few years ago? How many times has that been used? Furthermore, how many times has it needed to have been used? Hopefully, this goes the same way--and maybe that was what their intention was: to use an ejection as a deterrence for not hitting high.

There's just one problem--you have the time to consciously think about whether you should celebrate your way into the end zone. You don't (more times than not) have the time to adjust yourself to hit lower on the player and avoid the helmet to helmet hit. Whenever helmet-to-helmet hits have occurred with malice (a la Arkansas-Vanderbilt) the violator was ejected.

So now we're going to start ejecting players for reacting how any human would in an extremely short period of time (AKA not being able to adjust)?

The players know the consequences of the sport, and I'm sure most of them do ALL they can to avoid concussing another player, even if he is on the other team. The research done and ongoing has made everyone very aware of the dangers of brain injuries. Keep making safer helmets--but don't punish players for doing something they can't.

 

[PaulCrewe]

This is just dumb. But here's a caveat, remember that no touchdown for unsportsmanlike conduct that the NCAA enacted a few years ago? How many times has that been used? Furthermore, how many times has it needed to have been used? Hopefully, this goes the same way--and maybe that was what their intention was: to use an ejection as a deterrence for not hitting high.
There's just one problem--you have the time to consciously think about whether you should celebrate your way into the end zone. You don't (more times than not) have the time to adjust yourself to hit lower on the player and avoid the helmet to helmet hit. Whenever helmet-to-helmet hits have occurred with malice (a la Arkansas-Vanderbilt) the violator was ejected.

So now we're going to start ejecting players for reacting how any human would in an extremely short period of time (AKA not being able to adjust)?

The players know the consequences of the sport, and I'm sure most of them do ALL they can to avoid concussing another player, even if he is on the other team. The research done and ongoing has made everyone very aware of the dangers of brain injuries. Keep making safer helmets--but don't punish players for doing something they can't.

Only can recall the punter from Florida having a his td on a fake punt brought back for holding the ball out to the defender while high stepping.

 

[sd'sker]

This is just dumb. But here's a caveat, remember that no touchdown for unsportsmanlike conduct that the NCAA enacted a few years ago? How many times has that been used? Furthermore, how many times has it needed to have been used? Hopefully, this goes the same way--and maybe that was what their intention was: to use an ejection as a deterrence for not hitting high.
There's just one problem--you have the time to consciously think about whether you should celebrate your way into the end zone. You don't (more times than not) have the time to adjust yourself to hit lower on the player and avoid the helmet to helmet hit. Whenever helmet-to-helmet hits have occurred with malice (a la Arkansas-Vanderbilt) the violator was ejected.

So now we're going to start ejecting players for reacting how any human would in an extremely short period of time (AKA not being able to adjust)?

The players know the consequences of the sport, and I'm sure most of them do ALL they can to avoid concussing another player, even if he is on the other team. The research done and ongoing has made everyone very aware of the dangers of brain injuries. Keep making safer helmets--but don't punish players for doing something they can't.

Only can recall the punter from Florida having a his td on a fake punt brought back for holding the ball out to the defender while high stepping.

that was lsu.

 

[zoogs]

I'm not sure if these measures will work, but I'm glad they're doing something to protect the heads of our amateur college athletes.

The real pussification of football will begin when many of the best young athletes don't choose to go into it because there are much safer sports to get into and they'd like to keep their heads.

Football has a basic responsibility to its players and I hope they figure it out, however they do.

 

[PaulCrewe]

This is just dumb. But here's a caveat, remember that no touchdown for unsportsmanlike conduct that the NCAA enacted a few years ago? How many times has that been used? Furthermore, how many times has it needed to have been used? Hopefully, this goes the same way--and maybe that was what their intention was: to use an ejection as a deterrence for not hitting high.
There's just one problem--you have the time to consciously think about whether you should celebrate your way into the end zone. You don't (more times than not) have the time to adjust yourself to hit lower on the player and avoid the helmet to helmet hit. Whenever helmet-to-helmet hits have occurred with malice (a la Arkansas-Vanderbilt) the violator was ejected.

So now we're going to start ejecting players for reacting how any human would in an extremely short period of time (AKA not being able to adjust)?

The players know the consequences of the sport, and I'm sure most of them do ALL they can to avoid concussing another player, even if he is on the other team. The research done and ongoing has made everyone very aware of the dangers of brain injuries. Keep making safer helmets--but don't punish players for doing something they can't.

Only can recall the punter from Florida having a his td on a fake punt brought back for holding the ball out to the defender while high stepping.

that was lsu.

that's right it was against Florida

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'm not sure if these measures will work, but I'm glad they're doing something to protect the heads of our amateur college athletes.
The real pussification of football will begin when many of the best young athletes don't choose to go into it because there are much safer sports to get into and they'd like to keep their heads.

Football has a basic responsibility to its players and I hope they figure it out, however they do.

This isn't the right way.

 

[sd'sker]

that was lsu.

that's right it was against Florida

it was such a great play. and so fun to watch it happen to fla. i was furious it got called back.

 

[zoogs]

yeah, I don't like to see game-altering ejections. I guess they're banking on the threat being enough to effect a serious change in how players do things. I don't know. It might.

I hate the excessive celebrations overturning scoring plays too.

I kind of like the no helmets idea. Heh

It's just there is a widespread sense of society is 'pussifying' the game today, and it's not. The game needs to protect itself. It's more violent than ever before; a simple byproduct of better athleticism. And there's more awareness than ever before of things we had no idea about decades ago. Knowledge empowers, it doesn't weaken.

 

[B1G Red]

This is just dumb. But here's a caveat, remember that no touchdown for unsportsmanlike conduct that the NCAA enacted a few years ago? How many times has that been used? Furthermore, how many times has it needed to have been used? Hopefully, this goes the same way--

This isn't going to go away like the unsportsmanlike conduct rule. They are already throwing flags for this. This is on top of the 15 yard penalties they are already accessing. The article I referenced earlier said that last year there would have been 99 ejections.

The problem is that they catch some bad shots on defensless players, but also penalize good hits with legal contact like Kenny Bell's hit last year. The calls are already inconsistant, now just with enhanced repercussions.